Response-to-intervention (RTI) models incorporate a screening process to identify students who appear to be at risk for learning disabilities (LDs). The purpose of this position article is to incorporate what is known about screening into a flexible, yet comprehensive screening system to help school psychologists and other school administrators in establishing school-specific screening procedures. The authors begin by discussing past research on screening for reading disabilities (RDs) within the RTI framework. Then, they propose a four-step screening system advocating a short screener (Step 1), progress monitoring (Step 2), follow-up testing (Step 3), and ongoing revision of procedures and cut scores (Step 4). Their goal is to improve screening within RTI systems with practical procedures to permit schools to implement state-of-the-art screening batteries that accurately and efficiently distinguish students who are at high risk for RD.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanR. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50. doi:0161-1461/01/3201-0038
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340. doi:10.1037/a0018448
5.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394
6.
EllemanA.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008, July). Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at risk of developing comprehension difficulties. In ComptonD. L. (Chair), The utility of dynamic assessment in predicting concurrent and future academic performance. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Reading, Asheville, NC.
7.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.CaffreyE. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: Implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219411407864
8.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x
9.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.HollenbeckK. N.CraddockC. F.HamlettC. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 829–850. doi:10.1037/a0012657
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unified construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–46.
12.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.BarqueroL. A.ChoE. (2012). Testing the efficacy of multilevel supplemental tutoring in a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention model: A randomized control trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu
14.
Harcourt Brace. (2003). Stanford Achievement Test (10th ed.) (Tech. Data Rep.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
15.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY. (2010). Improving the accuracy of a direct route screening process. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 131–140. doi:10.1177/1534508409348375
18.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x
19.
MadelaineA.WheldallK. (2005). Identifying low-progress readers: Comparing teacher judgment with a curriculum-based measurement procedure. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 52, 33–42. doi:10.1080/10349120500071886
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.KwokO.McDonaghS.HarnB. A.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173. doi:10.1177/0022219407313587
25.
Sittner-BridgesM.CattsH. (2008, July). Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness. In ComptonD. L. (Chair), The utility of dynamic assessment in predicting concurrent and future academic performance. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Reading, Asheville, NC.
26.
SpectorJ. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353–363. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.353
27.
SwetsJ. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1701052
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070
